Since the partial release of the Jeffrey Epstein files last week, organisations have been busy erasing any links to George Mitchell over the past few days. From the BBC: Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) is to sever ties with a former United States senator who played a crucial role in Northern Ireland’s peace process, over his links with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The move comes a day after the US-Ireland Alliance said the George J Mitchell Scholarship Program would no ... Read more...
Since the partial release of the Jeffrey Epstein files last week, organisations have been busy erasing any links to George Mitchell over the past few days.
Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) is to sever ties with a former United States senator who played a crucial role in Northern Ireland’s peace process, over his links with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The move comes a day after the US-Ireland Alliance said the George J Mitchell Scholarship Program would no longer bear his name. It follows the release of millions of files relating to Epstein, including further references to an earlier claim he had sex with Epstein victim, Virginia Giuffre.
In a statement on Monday, issued before the move by QUB, a spokesperson for Mitchell said he never met, spoken to or had any contact with Giuffre or any underage women. Queen’s confirmed the move to the Talkback programme on Monday.
Mitchell’s spokesperson said that Mitchell “profoundly regrets ever having known Jeffrey Epstein and condemns, without reservation, the horrific harm Epstein inflicted on so many women”. The spokesperson added that he did not observe, suspect or have any knowledge of Epstein engaging in “illegal or inappropriate conduct with underage women”.
The university said it was going to remove the name Senator George J Mitchell, from the Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice, and remove a commemorative bust of Mitchell from its campus.
“While no findings of wrongdoing by Senator Mitchell have been made, the university has concluded that, in light of this material, and mindful of the experiences of victims and survivors, it is no longer appropriate for its institutional spaces and entities to continue to bear his name,” it added.
“As a civic institution with a global reputation for leadership in peace, reconciliation, and justice, Queen’s University Belfast must ensure that its honours and symbols reflect the highest standards consistent with its values and responsibilities.”
I feel a bit mixed about it all. Obviously, we are all revolted by the revelations in the Epstein files and the fact that there are still 2.5 million documents they haven’t released. But is it fair that someone’s entire reputation and life’s work can be destroyed by a single allegation? There is a reason we have actual courts, not just the court of public opinion. You can read the specifics of the allegations on his Wikipedia page.
But maybe Queens and the other organisations know something we don’t, and more will come to light.
I do also think there is a wider issue here. I am pretty certain that if you dig into their background, a good chunk of the people whose portraits hang in Queen’s or have buildings named after them have done terrible things. A fair few streets in Belfast are named after people who were complete murdering pricks. Once we start applying a purity test to everything, where do you stop?
George Mitchell did a lot of Northern Ireland. He regularly gave up his time over the years to come over and support various projects. Many organisations used his name and connections for their benefit. The guy is also 92 and has been battling cancer for the past few years.
So what’s the right call? Does he deserve the benefit of the doubt, or is this simply consequences catching up with him?
The complication is that the allegation against Mitchell came from Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide in April 2025. That means there may never be a courtroom moment where evidence is tested properly, witnesses are challenged, and a verdict is reached. If you believe powerful men have long escaped scrutiny, you can also argue that reputational damage is the only accountability they’ll ever face.
Edit 5:30pm: I had a chat with someone who knows a bit more about the situation. The core issue seems to be that a while back, organisations asked Mitchell for assurances that nothing new would come out, and he supposedly assured them there was nothing more. But with the release of the files last week, it came to light that there was additional correspondence between Epstein and Mitchell following Epstein’s conviction. So it mainly seems to be an issue around a breach of trust.
